In verband met het feit dat de demolition preparatie in een weekend zou gebeurd zijn dat er een power-down was met onderhoudswerken. En de paradox van het feit dat ze met weinig explosieven op strategische plaatsen een gecontroleerde demolitie hadden kunnen doen, maar dan valt de theorie van het gepulveriseerde concrete natuurlijk in duigen.
De mogelijkheden zijn dus:
a) Er waren enorm veel explosieven geinstalleerd, zorgend voor het gepulveriseerde concrete. Maar dan zou de voorbereidingstijd te lang en opvallend geweest zijn.
b) Er waren weinig explosieven geinstalleerd op strategische plaatsen, zodat de voorbereidingstijd korter (en mogelijk op een weekend) zou zijn. Maar dan kan het gepulveriseerde concrete weer niet meer wegens te weinig explosieven...
Alé ja ge ziet... veel extra uitleg hoeft niet meer...
---------------------------------
the power down time was initially reported as 36 hours, and a subsequent interview cut this to 26:
SF: All systems were shutdown on Saturday morning and the power down condition was in effect from approximately 12 noon on Saturday September 8, 2001.
GW: When did it end?
SF: Approximately 2PM on Sunday 9/9.
http://georgewashington.blogspot.com/2005/11/interview-with-scott-forbes.html
Preparing for a controlled demolition takes very much longer:
In 24 days, CDI's 12 person loading crew placed 4,118 separate charges in 1,100 locations on 9 levels of the structure. Over 36,000 ft. of detonating cord and 4,512 non-electric delay devices were installed in CDI's implosion initiation system. As the implosion required the detonation of a total of 2,728 lb. of explosives, CDI implemented 36 "primary delays" and an additional 216 “micro-delays" in the implosion initiation sequence in an attempt to keep detonation overpressure to a minimum.
http://www.controlled-demolition.com/default.asp?reqLocId=6&reqItemId=20020304145120
That's 24 days to prepare a smaller building (33 levels including basements) for demolition. And they didn't have to hide the 4,118 charges or 36,000 feet of detonating cord, either. Oh, and remember that Forbes said he worked the weekend, so there were independent witnesses around for at least some of that time. If this “power down” was a cover for demolition preparations, then it’s hard to know exactly what could be done in the time available.
People occasionally email to tell us that setting up a demolition need not involve so much work. Which begs the question why they know this, and Controlled Demolition do not. Anyway, this quote pops up a lot:
If explosions did cause the towers to collapse, the detonations could have been caused by a small amount of explosive, he said. "It could have been a relatively small amount of explosives placed in strategic points," Romero said.
http://911research.wtc7.net/disinfo/retractions/romero.html
But would that really explain all the reasons used to justify the controlled demolition theory in the first place? We’re told it’s suspicious that “all the concrete was pulverised”, for example: could a “relatively small amount of explosives” explain that? Not according to Jim Hoffman, who tells us that required at least ten times the energy available from gravity alone.
Then we’re told the towers collapsed too quickly, that the only way that could have happened is if the resistance were removed. This might involve many of the columns being taken out at the same time through demolition, in waves running down the building. Does that sound like a “relatively small amount” of explosives to you?
There does seem to be a couple of different argument here.
When it’s suggested that a gravity-driven collapse could have produced the observed effects and collapse times, we’re told that’s virtually impossible, there’s not enough energy, the towers were too strong, far more energy was required than available.
But when the difficulty in planting these explosives is pointed out, we’re told that, actually maybe a smaller amount would have done, after all.
Is there a contradiction here? Are some people switching their positions for the sake of convenience? We’ll leave that for you to decide, but in the meantime, if there is a way to demolish tall buildings with minimum effort then the real specialists in controlled demolition appear not to have heard about it. Here’s the Landmark Tower, demolished in March 2006:
The button to bring down the 30-story office tower at Seventh and Houston streets, one of the tallest buildings ever to be imploded, will be pushed at 8 a.m., said John Angelina president of D.H. Griffin of Texas, a Houston company that has served on the demolition team, which also includes Midwest Wrecking in Fort Worth.
Crews have been working feverishly this week on the final preparations on work that began in November.
"We'll work as hard today as we have in the last four months," Brian Choate, Midwest Wrecking's chief executive, said Thursday.
http://www.dfw.com/mld/dfw/14122036.htm
Around four months for the Landmark Tower, yet we’re supposed to believe far larger buildings were prepared over a weekend, without anyone noticing?
Could it still be done? Perhaps there were many hundreds of "engineers", all of which have been persuaded not to talk. Maybe they used special hi-tech explosives and so didn't require as many charges. But with no evidence to support any of that, it’s really just speculation..
And we're not the only people to express doubts on this, either. Even sites like 911review are calling the letter a hoax (
http://911review.com/errors/wtc/forbes.html ).
typisch ipv zelf te antwoorden stuur je hem door . Alles waar je geen antwoord op weet negeer je gewoon of verwijs je naar websites waar enorme volumes van onzin te vinden zijn.